Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Ahh but I am speaking above and beyond simple banditry, like dealing with evil gods, pacts with devils and such. My characters are more sophisticated than simple thugs. The heinous flag could make this play style ridiculously hard.

Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:

Ehh, all these flags sound overly punative to evil players. I saw nothing particulary bad for good players.

The heinous flag for example, so you do some despicable act and your flagged as a free kill to everyone in the game? Not even safe in your own settlement? If you have that flag it doesn't matter if your are in an evil settlement someone will attack you just becasue they can because they can get your stuff and not suffer any negative flags themselves. Even if the heinous act was actively promoting the goals of the settlement you serve.

Your not going to have any evil players with this system. I should say evil players that want to put any real effort into playing meaningful evil characters, not just random gankers.

If you are in an evil settlement will it really matter? Won't everyone there be flagged the same and therefore able to kill you without care anyway?

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Misere wrote:
Fiendish wrote:

Ehh, all these flags sound overly punative to evil players. I saw nothing particulary bad for good players.

The heinous flag for example, so you do some despicable act and your flagged as a free kill to everyone in the game? Not even safe in your own settlement? If you have that flag it doesn't matter if your are in an evil settlement someone will attack you just becasue they can because they can get your stuff and not suffer any negative flags themselves. Even if the heinous act was actively promoting the goals of the settlement you serve.

Your not going to have any evil players with this system. I should say evil players that want to put any real effort into playing meaningful evil characters, not just random gankers.

If you are in an evil settlement will it really matter? Won't everyone there be flagged the same and therefore able to kill you without care anyway?

Not as I see it. If I am Lawful Evil, living in a lawful evil settlement and consort with devils I should not be flagged as heinous because then anyone can kill me, even other lawful evils. Which should be out of character but hey there's no consequences so they get no flags and so they do it. Thus none of my friends can react because they then get flagged as criminals.

Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:

Not as I see it. If I am Lawful Evil, living in a lawful evil settlement and consort with devils I should not be flagged as heinous because then anyone can kill me, even other lawful evils. Which should be out of character but hey there's no consequences so they get no flags and so they do it. Thus none of my friends can react because they then get flagged as criminals.

Heinous is to do with being Evil not to do with breaking the law. Breaking the law is chaotic not evil.

Though I do sort of agree with your points. Perhaps if Heinous stays, it should only make you an open target to neutral or good aligned players and make no difference to your status with other Evil players..

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:
Misere wrote:
Fiendish wrote:

Ehh, all these flags sound overly punative to evil players. I saw nothing particulary bad for good players.

The heinous flag for example, so you do some despicable act and your flagged as a free kill to everyone in the game? Not even safe in your own settlement? If you have that flag it doesn't matter if your are in an evil settlement someone will attack you just becasue they can because they can get your stuff and not suffer any negative flags themselves. Even if the heinous act was actively promoting the goals of the settlement you serve.

Your not going to have any evil players with this system. I should say evil players that want to put any real effort into playing meaningful evil characters, not just random gankers.

If you are in an evil settlement will it really matter? Won't everyone there be flagged the same and therefore able to kill you without care anyway?
Not as I see it. If I am Lawful Evil, living in a lawful evil settlement and consort with devils I should not be flagged as heinous because then anyone can kill me, even other lawful evils. Which should be out of character but hey there's no consequences so they get no flags and so they do it. Thus none of my friends can react because they then get flagged as criminals.

Unless the settlement has no law permitting the attack of a "heinous" individual. It might even have a law prohibiting the attack of someone with a heinous flag. Now your friends can help, since your attacker is now a criminal.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Unless the settlement has no law permitting the attack of a "heinous" individual. It might even have a law prohibiting the attack of someone with a heinous flag. Now your friends can help, since your attacker is now a criminal.

Lawful Evil societies in many past campaigns have had severe penalties for unnecessary killing. Not for moral reasons but because it is disruptive and a waste of resources.

Also ... as I said above it makes no sense that heinous would effect your status with other evil characters.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:
Fiendish wrote:

Not as I see it. If I am Lawful Evil, living in a lawful evil settlement and consort with devils I should not be flagged as heinous because then anyone can kill me, even other lawful evils. Which should be out of character but hey there's no consequences so they get no flags and so they do it. Thus none of my friends can react because they then get flagged as criminals.

Heinous is to do with being Evil not to do with breaking the law. Breaking the law is chaotic not evil.

Though I do sort of agree with your points. Perhaps if Heinous stays, it should only make you an open target to neutral or good aligned players and make no difference to your status with other Evil players..

If there are some limitations to the heinous flag and its not a global "kill me" flag then it might work, but as of now the way it's written the whole flag feels unecessary and overly punative to evil players. Settlements and kingdoms can have laws that should be sufficent to prohibit certain behaviors deemed abhorent to good societies. Flag them as criminals in those areas. A global "kill on site" flag is not needed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO the heinous flag should just make you a target for good aligned players . Maybe neutral too. But among the evil that should have an opposite effect, adding to the chars fame perhaps.

Edit>> second thought, maybe neutral would not bother at all if you are or not heinous. So you're a target for good, indifferent for neutral and has a bonus among the evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Lets say there is a bandit group with 10 members. A caravan traveling through their controlled area (hideout to ambush fast travelers) would want at least 10 guards to combat that threat, probably more to ensure their survival. Lets say that a guard costs 20 gp an hour. That is a minimum of 200 gp. What if the bandits charged 150 gp and ensured their safety? Money, for not attacking someone.

Would that bandit group assure the safety of the caravan through that hex? If another bandit group knows that merchants pay a toll and use fewer guards, they could take advantage of the weaker caravan protections and attack. They could even try to blaim it on the first bandit group.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Unless the settlement has no law permitting the attack of a "heinous" individual. It might even have a law prohibiting the attack of someone with a heinous flag. Now your friends can help, since your attacker is now a criminal.

This. The possibilities for settlement laws are exciting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fiendish wrote:
Ehh, all these flags sound overly punative to evil players. I saw nothing particulary bad for good players.
Nihimon wrote:
Evil is already at an advantage in that they're more than happy to kill a Good guy and just take his stuff. Good doesn't do that. They need the Flag in order to justify their action.

With open world PvP, the flags level the playing field for the so-called "good" players. Evil players will have the advantage of striking first, as they are unconcerned with flags. When "evil" players are flagged, "good" players have the option of striking first (and will!) without needing to worry about acting out of character or facing "criminal" status.

There should always be a PvP solution...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LordDaeron wrote:
IMO the heinous flag should just make you a target for good aligned players...

Fantastic idea!

Goblin Squad Member

I hope this has already been brought up but if we have a Heinous flag that makes you KOS for good players why not have a good flag where you can be KOS by evil chars.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phyllain wrote:
I hope this has already been brought up but if we have a Heinous flag that makes you KOS for good players why not have a good flag where you can be KOS by evil chars.

I just have to wonder what purpose it would serve. Evil players taking a 'hit' making them more evil seems like it would be desirable for them anyway, doesn't it?

Goblin Squad Member

@All I understand how you guys are falling back to think in terms of the PnP ruleset as it's familiar. I'm sure (and hopefull)that PFO will try to capture some of the spirit of the PnP ruleset and will undoubtedly have spells that are called the same as in the PnP ruleset but I'm equaly sure the mechanics of how they work will be VASTLY different. The reasons are simple, the medium is entirely different...real time MMO vs turn based small party... and the type of game is vastly different PvP focused as opposed to PvE focused.

If we look at just 2 already stated design goals we can understand some things about the spell system...and really game mechanics in general...

1) They want the power curve between low level characters and high level characters in combat to be fairly shallow... wide but shallow...so that low level characters can contribute meaningfully in combat.

In the PnP RuleSet, a level 1 or level 2 character isn't even a speed-bump to a level 10 character. They don't even cut it as an NPC extra in combat. A single spell can take out dozens of them at a time. That simply CAN'T be the case in the PFO ruleset or it would negate one of the key design goals for PFO.

2) In the PnP RuleSet, offensive abilities quickly begin (in general) to outstrip defensive abilities. Why?, because PC's (and thier monsterous opponents) hit points dramaticaly increase with each level gained. In order for combat to not take forever in real hours, most attacks have to hit and do some damage...or the damage that each attack does has to generaly increase...or you have to start implimenting sleezes that kill/disable targets without going through the hit-point system.

In PFO we already know the hit point increase with each level will be lower. In the PnP ruleset where a level 1 character might have 10 hit points, a level 10 character might have 100. In PFO they've already stated that a level 10 character might have the equivalent of 15-20 hit points comparatively. Mechanicaly that probably means the difference in raw damage between high and low level spells won't be as great and defensive options will tend to keep pace with offensive ones.

If in PFO, a 10th level character has the equivalent of 20 hit points does anyone think that a fireball is going to do the equivalent of 10d6 damage over a 20 ft radius area?

Even if the above were the only changes between the 2 games, and they are not, it would mean that people really need to start thinking outside of the dynamics of the PnP RuleSet and how things mechanicaly work there.

We need to kinda erase many of those preconceptions and think of the way things could work or should work if you were building an entirely new game then the PnP ruleset from scratch....because essentialy that's what PFO is.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Phyllain wrote:
I hope this has already been brought up but if we have a Heinous flag that makes you KOS for good players why not have a good flag where you can be KOS by evil chars.
I just have to wonder what purpose it would serve. Evil players taking a 'hit' making them more evil seems like it would be desirable for them anyway, doesn't it?

Well, if that were the only thing mechanicaly that were different, it wouldn't....but once you start layering NPC guards coming in to help the defender and deathcurses and bounties and other mechanics...it's a different story.

Ultimately, I'm waiting to hear from GW what's good about playing "Evil"...or if their design intent is to purposefully try to dissuade people from playing "Evil".

The latter, I think would be a mistake...since the struggle of "Good" vs "Evil" is one of the key components of conflict in the source material....or frankly in pretty much any High Fantasy setting. Players who are interested in "High Fantasy" are going to expect it, and if it's lacking I think they will be disappointed.

Goblin Squad Member

I feel like we are all putting alot more stock in alignment conflict then we should. At the begining we might see alot of good vs evil conflict just because alot of us like the rp aspect. But as teh game ages I think we will see alot more conflict bassed off of the economical side of the game and territorial expansion alot more than alignment.


Nihimon wrote:
LordDaeron wrote:
IMO the heinous flag should just make you a target for good aligned players...
Fantastic idea!

That is a good idea, however they should also be targeted by neutral aligned players as well

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole "It sounds really hard on evil characters / societies" criticism seems to forget that the point of the game is to bring real social interplay into the game. Social creatures, from humans to lions, follow a plethora of ingrained social moral codes for the benefit of the group. Acting against these codes are usually punished by the group. These rules are simply opening the door to allow for the natural acts of defending the social well-being as well as punishing those who would violate that well-being. To produce a system that made it more dangerous for social creatures to engage in the social good would be unnatural.

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

The RISK of offending your fellow social creatures is offset by whatever selfish REWARD you see in doing so.

On a similar note - there is nothing inherently Good about attacking people with these tags. Doing so to protect others is Good. Doing so because it is a less risky way of seeking rewards is still Evil.

If an executioner in modern times took sadistic glee in his profession, it would not make him Good because he is killing murderers sentenced to death. However, the fact that his motivation is Evil does not readily enter the social consciousness because he is performing his deed upon someone whom society has deemed as deserving it. Unless the executioner's motivations and derangement are brought against the rest of society, many folk will view his actions as Neutral (except for those who do not view the death penalty as a humane form of punishment).

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragon wrote:
As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls.

This reminds me of something Ryan said.

From Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Evil societies will constantly be tearing themselves apart from within - such is the nature of evil. To advance their goals they'll be at each others throats.

Goblin Squad Member

Which aligns well with the standard outlook of evil as represented in much of the D&D and Pathfinder Pen and Paper descriptors, modules, and novelizations.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

No, no, no. I understand that evil is full a backstabbing and betrayal but we are not discussing those things. I don't have a problem with that. If someone wants to hire an assassin to take me out fine but they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Lawful Evil societies work and thrive because of peoples fear of the penalties for breaking the law.

For example: Me being a Priestess of Asmodeus has just finished a ritual where I summon a devil and make a deal with it and then I decide to go to the market. But uh-oh I am flagged with the heinous flag. Now I have to deal with the possibility of being attacked by a group of coward pkers who would not attempt to attack me for fear of being labeled criminals in their own town and having the full wrath of the city guards come down on them. But hey I have the Heinous flag, which as far as we know now is a universal flag to every character in the game, so they give it a go and succeed killing me and they are not flagged as criminals becasue the heinous flag acts as a free pass for them.

This is the crux of my argument, this situation. If the heinous flag does not show for evil aligned players then fine. I just want the developers to be aware of the possibilty of stupid scenarios that punish role-playing that a universal flag would make possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

This whole "It sounds really hard on evil characters / societies" criticism seems to forget that the point of the game is to bring real social interplay into the game. Social creatures, from humans to lions, follow a plethora of ingrained social moral codes for the benefit of the group. Acting against these codes are usually punished by the group. These rules are simply opening the door to allow for the natural acts of defending the social well-being as well as punishing those who would violate that well-being. To produce a system that made it more dangerous for social creatures to engage in the social good would be unnatural.

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

The RISK of offending your fellow social creatures is offset by whatever selfish REWARD you see in doing so.

On a similar note - there is nothing inherently Good about attacking people with these tags. Doing so to protect others is Good. Doing so because it is a less risky way of seeking rewards is still Evil.

If an executioner in modern times took sadistic glee in his profession, it would not make him Good because he is killing murderers sentenced to death. However, the fact that his motivation is Evil does not readily enter the social consciousness because he is performing his deed upon someone whom society has deemed as deserving it. Unless the executioner's motivations and derangement are brought against the rest of society, many folk will view his actions as Neutral (except for...

Well you are essentialy setting up a situation where "Good" wins automaticaly which is great for Real Life (if it were actualy true) and great for PVE focused games...but not so great for PvP focused games.

Note in both Real Life and in the setting. There are not a UNIVERSALY accepted set of social mores. All mores may contribute to the success of their particular group in some manner....but those more's are NOT in agreement with each other. The Romans had one set, The Spartans another, the Celts another, etc. "Evil", especialy LE is not the absence of social mores, it's simply a DIFFERENT set of mores that are not in agreement with the ones held by "Good."

YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Which aligns well with the standard outlook of evil as represented in much of the D&D and Pathfinder Pen and Paper descriptors, modules, and novelizations.

Which doesn't work at all for PvP focused games unless "Evil" also has some capabilties which translate into mechanical advantages.

Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

No, no, no. I understand that evil is full a backstabbing and betrayal but we are not discussing those things. I don't have a problem with that. If someone wants to hire an assassin to take me out fine but they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Lawful Evil societies work and thrive because of peoples fear of the penalties for breaking the law.

For example: Me being a Priestess of Asmodeus has just finished a ritual where I summon a devil and make a deal with it and then I decide to go to the market. But uh-oh I am flagged with the heinous flag. Now I have to deal with the possibility of being attacked by a group of coward pkers who would not attempt to attack me for fear of being labeled criminals in their own town and having the full wrath of the city guards come down on them. But hey I have the Heinous flag, which as far as we know now is a universal flag to every character in the game, so they give it a go and succeed killing me and they are not flagged as criminals becasue the heinous flag acts as a free pass for them.

This is the crux of my argument, this situation. If the heinous flag does not show for evil aligned players then fine. I just want the developers to be aware of the possibilty of stupid scenarios that punish role-playing that a universal flag would make possible.

Worse yet, that could even happen in your OWN settlement where you theoreticaly control all the laws and the guards enforcing them.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Fiendish wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

No, no, no. I understand that evil is full a backstabbing and betrayal but we are not discussing those things. I don't have a problem with that. If someone wants to hire an assassin to take me out fine but they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Lawful Evil societies work and thrive because of peoples fear of the penalties for breaking the law.

For example: Me being a Priestess of Asmodeus has just finished a ritual where I summon a devil and make a deal with it and then I decide to go to the market. But uh-oh I am flagged with the heinous flag. Now I have to deal with the possibility of being attacked by a group of coward pkers who would not attempt to attack me for fear of being labeled criminals in their own town and having the full wrath of the city guards come down on them. But hey I have the Heinous flag, which as far as we know now is a universal flag to every character in the game, so they give it a go and succeed killing me and they are not flagged as criminals becasue the heinous flag acts as a free pass for them.

This is the crux of my argument, this situation. If the heinous flag does not show for evil aligned players then fine. I just want the developers to be aware of the possibilty of stupid scenarios that punish role-playing that a universal flag would make possible.

Worse yet, that could even happen in your OWN settlement where you theoreticaly control all the laws and the guards enforcing them.

Exactly, you seem to be one of the few who get this.

Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Fiendish wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

No, no, no. I understand that evil is full a backstabbing and betrayal but we are not discussing those things. I don't have a problem with that. If someone wants to hire an assassin to take me out fine but they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Lawful Evil societies work and thrive because of peoples fear of the penalties for breaking the law.

For example: Me being a Priestess of Asmodeus has just finished a ritual where I summon a devil and make a deal with it and then I decide to go to the market. But uh-oh I am flagged with the heinous flag. Now I have to deal with the possibility of being attacked by a group of coward pkers who would not attempt to attack me for fear of being labeled criminals in their own town and having the full wrath of the city guards come down on them. But hey I have the Heinous flag, which as far as we know now is a universal flag to every character in the game, so they give it a go and succeed killing me and they are not flagged as criminals becasue the heinous flag acts as a free pass for them.

This is the crux of my argument, this situation. If the heinous flag does not show for evil aligned players then fine. I just want the developers to be aware of the possibilty of stupid scenarios that punish role-playing that a universal flag would make possible.

Worse yet, that
...

Won't you have to just trust those fellow evil players in your own settlement that is welcoming to such aligments?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good and Evil in this world are not subjective. They are real, defined traits recognized by proven-to-exist gods as well as mystical forces behind magic. Raise Undead is considered evil, regardless of the reason for doing so and regardless of whether Group A or Group B says nothing is wrong with it.

I would support a settlement's ability to define a law that makes killing heinous players a criminal offense, and places the criminal tag on them. That makes complete sense to me. I feel that if this option is missing, then there is a short-coming to the ability to define the legal system of a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Heck, I would support a system that would make a law stating that players with the Heinous tag get a 10% discount from NPC vendors because they might be afraid of them!

Goblin Squad Member

Yet where a settlement can set their own laws there can be no absolute laws, can there?

The Law is either set by Lawful deities, or it is set by the player community. I fail to see how it can be both unless players are able to dictate to gods what shall and shall not be.

Which is it?

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Heck, I would support a system that would make a law stating that players with the Heinous tag get a 10% discount from NPC vendors because they might be afraid of them!

I like the idea of reputation (tags) impacting NPC's to the character's advantage.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

@ Lifedragn

I can get behind both of those ideas. ;)

I just want the devs to be aware if they don't allow evil settlements the ability to ignore heinous activities or regulate them as they see fit then they are making a terrible mistake that will hamper role-play.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Yet where a settlement can set their own laws there can be no absolute laws, can there?

The Law is either set by Lawful deities, or it is set by the player community. I fail to see how it can be both unless players are able to dictate to gods what shall and shall not be.

Which is it?

Neither. If you choose to look at it that way, the Lawful deities set certain laws. Outside the issues covered by those, players are able to set their own. It's additive.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being

The same way that the Federal, State, County, and City can all stack laws on top of each other. In the case where two agencies declare counter-claims, then it usually falls to higher authority to enact repercussions. For example: The United States has a Federal Law that makes marijuana use illegal. Many states have legalized it for the purpose of medicinal use. Your state troopers won't come busting down your medical marijuana dispensary. But the federal Drug Enforcement Agency can and might.

The Gods certainly recognize raising undead as evil. Not as sure about Slavery at least in Golarian.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lifedragn, slavery in Golarian at large isn't normally an issue, but there are a few places where it is considered absolutely unacceptable. The River Kingdoms is one such place.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Just a heads up - Stephen Cheney, a GW Game Designer just posted over in the http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2peh0?Being-Heinous-and-the-perils-of-playing-e vil thread

Goblin Squad Member

Also, it is probably in the devs' best interest not to include a SLAVERY mechanic in their commercial MMO game.

Goblin Squad Member

@Dario - So the question then is - Is slavery Evil? As good an evil are pretty black and white in this realm. The paladin who slaughters 10 innocent children to save 1,000 is still going to get hit for his evil deed.

Or is it merely unlawful, as the River Kingdoms as a region makes the dictate that slavery is not acceptable there?

Goblin Squad Member

If memory serves, most of the nations where slavery is prominent are evil, so I'm inclined to say, yes, in Golarion slavery is evil. There's a bunch that tolerate it without embracing it, and at least two where it's outright banned.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
If memory serves, most of the nations where slavery is prominent are evil, so I'm inclined to say, yes, in Golarion slavery is evil. There's a bunch that tolerate it without embracing it, and at least two where it's outright banned.

Most, yes, but some, like Katapesh are more neutral. Spoiler - if you are a Halfling, don't go there ;)

Legacy of Fire AP = my favorite AP to date.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

@Dario - So the question then is - Is slavery Evil? As good an evil are pretty black and white in this realm. The paladin who slaughters 10 innocent children to save 1,000 is still going to get hit for his evil deed.

Or is it merely unlawful, as the River Kingdoms as a region makes the dictate that slavery is not acceptable there?

Slavery in the River Kingdoms is against the few common laws they have. If you insist on slaves, they might very well decide to destroy you. Former slaves might very well have views about it.

Of course a LE settlement could just use convicted prisoners for labor, and since they make the laws....


So pretty much only the summoning archetypes can receive the heinous flag? I don't see any other actions possible within the game that would give the flag. The flag seems, well unnecessary unless there are actions that any type of player can do to receive the flag.

It seems to single out one type of player for punishment, but what purpose does it serve aside from giving others a free chance to kill them? It's not like they can not summon, it's a core aspect of their path.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:

So pretty much only the summoning archetypes can receive the heinous flag? I don't see any other actions possible within the game that would give the flag. The flag seems, well unnecessary unless there are actions that any type of player can do to receive the flag.

It seems to single out one type of player for punishment, but what purpose does it serve aside from giving others a free chance to kill them? It's not like they can not summon, it's a core aspect of their path.

I hazard to guess "using slaves" will be an Evil aligned Settlement option, perhaps it's cheaper? That then would be unrelated to archetype but related to alignment, maybe?

I don't know how necromancy works in pathfinder, but I assume it involves something unpleasant eg life for life or chaining the resting souls to the torment of unlife and toil in the material plane... all fairly evil, right?! ;)

But in both cases, functionally tempting if both are cheaper (cost) than hired labour, but at an alignment and "heinous" risk, maybe that is how it's related/balanced?

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
So pretty much only the summoning archetypes can receive the heinous flag? I don't see any other actions possible within the game that would give the flag.

From Blood on the Tracks:

Quote:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.

That makes it sound to me like all players will have the option to use slaves in a construction project.

Goblin Squad Member

Also,

Quote:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.

The text seems to imply that the heinous flag will be a short-lived flag allowing characters to act when they catch someone in the process of performing one of these actions, not a flag that's going to remain for a while. It seems more like the attacker flag than the criminal flag.

This would be in line with Stephen's explanation:

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifically worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties.


Nihimon wrote:
Valandur wrote:
So pretty much only the summoning archetypes can receive the heinous flag? I don't see any other actions possible within the game that would give the flag.

From Blood on the Tracks:

Quote:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.
That makes it sound to me like all players will have the option to use slaves in a construction project.

That does seem like the only way they can implement using slaves without bringing the whole "having slaves" issue into the game. I could see that, but with the flag not lasting very long, it's unlikely that anyone, in an evil settlement, that chooses to use slaves for constriction, would run into any sizable number of good aligned players before the flag drops off.

Kallan wrote:

Also,

Quote:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.

The text seems to imply that the heinous flag will be a short-lived flag allowing characters to act when they catch someone in the process of performing one of these actions, not a flag that's going to remain for a while. It seems more like the attacker flag than the criminal flag.

This would be in line with Stephen's explanation:

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Heinous itself was added to the design recently in response to players a month or so ago specifiucally worried that the general alignment systems meant their paladins would have to stand by and watch evil characters do horrible things that they couldn't stop without major penalties.

In the other thread someone posted a reply to my question on how long the flag lasts. Of course we don't have an exact time, but by all indications it won't last long, I'm thinking 10-15 minutes tops. So if I played a summoning type of caster (one that will receive the flag) I would plan on doing my summoning, or whatever gets me the flag, then waste some time until the flag drops off before venturing out into areas where I would meet good aligned players. This would be a minor inconvenience, but not near as big as I had initially thought.

So unless there are more actions that trigger the heinous flag, I don't see it as being something that will truly hamper gameplay. Although I wonder what would happen if a Necromancer were to be walking along with some skeletons, and he were to meet a Paladin on the road? If the Nec no longer has the heinous flag, and doesn't attack the Pally, could the Pally attack the Nec without getting flags? I would think no...?

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

As for becoming a target to your fellow evil players... that is how evil rolls. Evil very frequently turns in upon itself and feeds on itself. That is the very nature of the harmful and selfish actions that lead someone to be considered evil. To imagine that evil would only want to victimize good is missing out on a very critical aspect of the psychology that makes someone evil. Good versus Evil has never been about Team A vs. Team B. There is no Team Evil, but only groups of people who might logically decide to stop attacking each other and work together long enough to put down a larger threat.

No, no, no. I understand that evil is full a backstabbing and betrayal but we are not discussing those things. I don't have a problem with that. If someone wants to hire an assassin to take me out fine but they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Lawful Evil societies work and thrive because of peoples fear of the penalties for breaking the law.

For example: Me being a Priestess of Asmodeus has just finished a ritual where I summon a devil and make a deal with it and then I decide to go to the market. But uh-oh I am flagged with the heinous flag. Now I have to deal with the possibility of being attacked by a group of coward pkers who would not attempt to attack me for fear of being labeled criminals in their own town and having the full wrath of the city guards come down on them. But hey I have the Heinous flag, which as far as we know now is a universal flag to every character in the game, so they give it a go and succeed killing me and they are not flagged as criminals becasue the heinous flag acts as a free pass for them.

This is the crux of my argument, this situation. If the heinous flag does not show for evil aligned players then fine. I just want the developers to be aware of the possibilty of stupid scenarios that punish role-playing that a universal flag would make possible.

I agree, summoning undead or infernals in an area that is controlled by evil shouldn't flag someone for FFA pk'ing (aside from the normal anything goes).

Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:

No, no, no. I understand that evil is full a backstabbing and betrayal but we are not discussing those things. I don't have a problem with that. If someone wants to hire an assassin to take me out fine but they need to suffer the consequences of their actions. Lawful Evil societies work and thrive because of peoples fear of the penalties for breaking the law.

For example: Me being a Priestess of Asmodeus has just finished a ritual where I summon a devil and make a deal with it and then I decide to go to the market. But uh-oh I am flagged with the heinous flag. Now I have to deal with the possibility of being attacked by a group of coward pkers who would not attempt to attack me for fear of being labeled criminals in their own town and having the full wrath of the city guards come down on them. But hey I have the Heinous flag, which as far as we know now is a universal flag to every character in the game, so they give it a go and succeed killing me and they are not flagged as criminals becasue the heinous flag acts as a free pass for them.

This is the crux of my argument, this situation. If the heinous flag does not show for evil aligned players then fine. I just want the developers to be aware of the possibilty of stupid scenarios that punish role-playing that a universal flag would make possible.

This is quite reasonable but I don't support the non-universal flag. The heinous flag should be brief in a way that if you don't bring the demon out in the open the flag should be gone by the time you leave your own basement lasting a minute or two max.

Stephen Cheney's post on the subject

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Am I the only one who sees the Thief flag as a way to avoid the repercussions of unprovoked pvp?

Just imagine this, I kill some NPC -without causing myself to become flagged in the process- and then ignore the body, and hide nearby. After the husk of the NPC becomes unlocked, some unsuspecting player, possibly a new player, walks by and loots the NPC husk, gaining the Thief flag in the process. I then am able to kill the "Thief" without accruing any flags, just because they fell for my trap, I may then leave the Thief's husk lying there waiting for someone else to loot it and repeat the process, all without ever being flagged myself.

SO effectively, I could rack up a whole heap of dead player husks through this method without ever gaining a flag myself.

Goblin Squad Member

Dylos wrote:

Am I the only one who sees the Thief flag as a way to avoid the repercussions of unprovoked pvp?

Just imagine this, I kill some NPC -without causing myself to become flagged in the process- and then ignore the body, and hide nearby. After the husk of the NPC becomes unlocked, some unsuspecting player, possibly a new player, walks by and loots the NPC husk, gaining the Thief flag in the process. I then am able to kill the "Thief" without accruing any flags, just because they fell for my trap, I may then leave the Thief's husk lying there waiting for someone else to loot it and repeat the process, all without ever being flagged myself.

SO effectively, I could rack up a whole heap of dead player husks through this method without ever gaining a flag myself.

I thought the thief tag was only for looting player husks? Do NPC even have husks??

151 to 200 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Blood on the Tracks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.